Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details. Content preview: Hi Karen, I started to reading it, and I find it quite helpful. I have a suggestion: for me the formal definitions (such as "Shape := label:IRI|BNode, targets:Set[Target], filters:Set[Shape], constraints:Set[Constraint]") would be more readable if they would be in monospace characterset - similarly than the examples. [...] Content analysis details: (2.7 points, 1.1 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in lists.clir.org.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kirunews[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 2.4 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source [209.85.220.169 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
attached mail follows:
Hi Karen, I started to reading it, and I find it quite helpful. I have a suggestion: for me the formal definitions (such as "Shape := label:IRI|BNode, targets:Set[Target], filters:Set[Shape], constraints:Set[Constraint]") would be more readable if they would be in monospace characterset - similarly than the examples. "This signifies that a Shape has four components called label, targets, filters, constraints. The label is either a IRI or BNode, the targets are a set of Targets, the filters are a set of Shapes, and the constraintsis a set of Constraints." Here I would expect a bit more explanations something like "targets are a set of Targets (the elements which are selected as the subject of validation)". I am not sure whether the result in the example for 5.1.3 Datatype section is right. I would expect issue2 is right because it is a xsd:dateTime, and issue1 is wrong because it is a xsd:date, and not the other way around. Do you know any existing implementation or is there a project working on the implementation? Best regards, Péter 2016-09-05 17:21 GMT+02:00 Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net>: > Folks, > > There is a W3C standard (SHACL)[1] in development that would address the > issue of validation of RDF graphs. The standard itself is, as standards tend > to be, long and not an easy read. Eric Prud'hommeaux and I (both committee > members) have created a first draft of a brief reference document, in the > form of an Abstract Syntax of the core vocabulary of the SHACL standard. We > welcome any comments or corrections to this document, and any suggestions > for making it better. The draft is at: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/ > > Comments should be sent to the mail list at: > > public-rdf-shapes_at_w3.org > > However, I will also entertain any discussion that takes place here, which > feels less formal than posting to a W3C list. Our goal is to make SHACL Core > as clear as possible for first time users. If this becomes a W3C standard, > it will probably eventually become available in various RDF-related tools. > > Thanks, > kc > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/ > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FIRST PUBLIC WORKING DRAFT: SHACL CORE ABSTRACT SYNTAX AND > SEMANTICS > Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:46:10 +0000 > Resent-From: public-rdf-shapes_at_w3.org > Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:45:36 -0700 > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> > Reply-To: kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net > To: public-rdf-shapes_at_w3.org <public-rdf-shapes_at_w3.org> > > **Please forward to interested lists** > > As announced on the W3C blog[1], the first public working draft of the SHACL > Core Abstract Syntax[2] has been published by the RDF Data Shapes Web > Working Group.[3] > > "This document defines an abstract syntax for the core SHACL (SHApes > Constraint Language). It is derived from the SHACL specification and is a > non-normative version of the content of that specification." > > We are soliciting comments (and questions) on this first draft. Please > comment at public-rdf-shapes_at_w3.org. > > --------- > [1] https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5749 > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/ > [3] https:////www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/ > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 -- Péter Király software developer GWDG, Göttingen - Europeana - eXtensible Catalog - The Code4Lib Journal http://linkedin.com/in/peterkiralyReceived on Wed Sep 07 2016 - 05:47:39 EDT